Alex Loyd’s concept of “Healing Codes” is one of the most bizarre, ridiculous offshoots of so-called energy medicine. Loyd is a naturopath who has been criticized by “Dr. Joe” Schwarcz for recycling old bunk for profit. He claims that illness is due to disturbances in the human energy field and that the cells of our body store destructive energy patterns and all our memories, habits, interests, and tastes. This is pure imagination: there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a human energy field or of cellular memory.

By one account, God told Loyd about the Healing Codes in a dream. By another account, he studied under Roger Callahan in 1999 and derived his system from Callahan’s Thought Field Therapy, a fringe psychological treatment with no scientific evidence of efficacy. By another account, a 10-year-old boy had a vivid dream in which a “power” gave him a gift: a series of 10 words that could heal. His parents used the words and experienced near-miraculous healing. They were past clients of Loyd and they offered the words to Loyd. The parents didn’t want any money; they wanted to share their miraculous discovery with the world and help as many people as possible. Loyd was not bound by any such scruples. He proceeded to develop an elaborate money-making business around those words, charging clients hundreds of dollars to get in on the secret. He claims to have customers in 50 states and 143 countries. If using a special sequence of words to heal reminds you of Harry Potter and witches’ books of spells, you’re not alone. (more…)

I recently wrote a SkepDoc column on fantasy physics in Skeptic magazine in which I mentioned a study that had allegedly measured 2 milligauss emanations from a healer’s hands. A reader inquired about it and went on to ask “what criteria is [sic] necessary for gaining acceptance in the scientific community in regards to purported healing processes using energy fields generated in the human hand, specifically the palm area.”

What would it take to prove this implausible claim to the satisfaction of the scientific community? That is an excellent question with a complicated answer. It’s worth looking at because there is only one science and the same standards apply to how science evaluates any claim. I’ll take a stab at it, and perhaps our commenters can add words of wisdom.